|
Thug Lessons posted:I'm sorry, this whole thing is a scam cooked up by a 28-year-old nerd. Uh who do you think is actually writing "real" journal articles?
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
ahh yes, CNBC, the first result that shows up if you google "bitcoin energy usage overestimate" which contains no details other than an "expert" going 'actually, this is impossible!' cmon bro try harder i'm sure there's some easily available data/sources if usage is really 5% of his estimate
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Really? Joule is a peer-reviewed journal and a sister journal of Cell. That's a pretty big claim that they punished made-up numbers. Cell Press is a great publisher, so it seems unlikely they'd completely whiff on publishing made up numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Uh who do you think is actually writing "real" journal articles? Hopefully people with some sort of background in the subject they're writing about.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
self unaware posted:ahh yes, CNBC, the first result that shows up if you google "bitcoin energy usage overestimate" which contains no details other than an "expert" going 'actually, this is impossible!' Unironically: the only better source for bitcoin stuff than CNBC would be the buttcoin foundation, the YOSPOS bitcoin thread or David Gerard's blog. Thug Lessons posted:Hopefully people with some sort of background in the subject they're writing about. I mean the PI is signing his name at the end but...
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
self unaware posted:ahh yes, CNBC, the first result that shows up if you google "bitcoin energy usage overestimate" which contains no details other than an "expert" going 'actually, this is impossible!' Would you take a bitcoin blogger's word as gospel on literally anything else except this?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
future projections are obviously going to be layered with bullshit on all sides, im much more interested in hearing how current bitcoin energy usage is Resident smoothbrains posted:The actual energy usage from bitcoin is maybe 5% of what he claims. Thug Lessons posted:Would you take a bitcoin blogger's word as gospel on literally anything else except this? i'd take it over the word of a climate denialist who makes arugments than furiously googles for the first news article that agrees with him without actually reading them or backing up what they are saying hobbesmaster posted:Unironically: the only better source for bitcoin stuff than CNBC would be the buttcoin foundation, the YOSPOS bitcoin thread or David Gerard's blog. lol at defending CNBC, good lord what an unironically stupid thing to say
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i'd take it over the word of a climate denialist who makes arugments than furiously googles for the first news article that agrees with him without actually reading them or backing up what they are saying I didn't Google anything you putz. I've posted that article on this website at least twice over the past few months. Do you want me to link to those posts to prove it?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I didn't Google anything you putz. I've posted that article on this website at least twice over the past few months. Do you want me to link to those posts to prove it? i want you to link me something explaining how you came to the conclusion that bitcoins' actual energy usage is 5% of the estimate posted earlier you know, what you said earlier? like actually provide some context or explanation for how you've come to that conclusion that isn't a CNBC article not saying what you are but i mean, if you form your political opinions based off of CNBC headlines it certainly would explain a lot honestly you don't have to answer i know you're full of poo poo i'm mostly just demonstrating that for the uninitiated here just slink away until your next denialist derail 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 23:00 on May 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i want you to link me something explaining how you came to the conclusion that bitcoins' actual energy usage is 5% of the estimate posted earlier Every estimate from an actual energy analyst I've seen has put bitcoin's energy usage in the 100s of MWh or low TWh. How about instead of me showing them to you, you find me someone who isn't Alex de Vries who will make these same claims about ridiculous bitcoin energy usage?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Every estimate from an actual energy analyst I've seen has put bitcoin's energy usage in the 100s of MWh or low TWh. Feel free to provide one Bonus points if it's not on the first page of the google result page for "energy analyst bitcoin power estimate alarmism" imagine being able to actually say you've read multiple energy analysts' reports on the energy usage of bitcoin and when questioned you post a CNBC link 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 23:09 on May 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:The 2.55 number is straightforward, take network hashing power and divide by advertised efficiency of miners, maybe miners are lying about their efficiency but that makes it a floor. de Vries doesn't actually do this. He uses a wack-a-doodle method that "no credible analyst would ever do".  https://thinkprogress.org/bitcoin-energy-consumption-overhyped-56e018e7a6d8/
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:de Vries doesn't actually do this. He uses a wack-a-doodle method that "no credible analyst would ever do".
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:de Vries doesn't actually do this. He uses a wack-a-doodle method that "no credible analyst would ever do". let's just cut through the liberal news machine bullshit you're running through and go to the source (the expert they are referencing in your latest article) http://blog.zorinaq.com/serious-faults-in-beci/ quote:The author of the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index makes fundamentally flawed assumptions, causing it to demonstrably overestimate the electricity consumption of Bitcoin miners by 1.5× to 2.8×, and likely by 2.2×. hmm you'll note that 1.5x-2.8x is not 20x, hth
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:No you are objectively incorrect. 26 quintillion hashes per second * 0.098 joules per gigahash = 2.55 GW. That's just math. We can talk about whether those numbers are right, but they look like floors to me. Again, de Vries does not do this. I'm not saying that bitcoin mining uses <2.55 GW, just stating the objective fact that de Vries doesn't use the method you're describing. Feel free to click through on that link there to see someone who does.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Again, de Vries does not do this. I'm not saying that bitcoin mining uses <2.55 GW, just stating the objective fact that de Vries doesn't use the method you're describing. Feel free to click through on that link there to see someone who does. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(26+quintillion+hashes+per+second+*+0.098+joules+per+gigahash)+as+gigawatts And by some strange coincidence it comes out to exactly the same value.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
self unaware posted:let's just cut through the liberal news machine bullshit you're running through and go to the source (the expert they are referencing in your latest article) Those are numbers from about a year ago. Using Bevand's current calculations, the actual energy usage of bitcoin is about 25% of what de Vries claims. If you want to chalk that up as a win again my 5% number, go ahead. In any case Bevand puts the numbers in perspective:  After all these panicked headlines about bitcoin killing the planet, how much energy does bitcoin use? At most, 0.025% of world energy consumption, or 0.14% of total electricity consumption. A small fraction of one percent. Maybe if growth continues, it might use a whole 1% one day! This is a non-story that only exists because bitcoin is a sexy topic and people love to talk about bitcoin. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 23:39 on May 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
it's not a non-story that a digital currency based on using energy to solve math problems nobody needs the answer to is probably not the most appropriate use of resources given climate change but you don't care/think it's a big deal if the climate changes so i can see how it would be a non-story to you
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:Again they did, feel free to open the article and ctrl-f for "2.55". And if you still think they didn't then consider that I am definitely doing the math: That number is for a lower bound. It's not how he estimates power usage. If you don't believe me, go look at his site, which estimates 67 TWh/y in electricity consumption.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That number is for a lower bound. It's not how he estimates power usage. If you don't believe me, go look at his site, which estimates 67 TWh/y. twodot posted:The 2.55 number is straightforward, take network hashing power and divide by advertised efficiency of miners, maybe miners are lying about their efficiency but that makes it a floor. The 7.67 number is very made up, they're assuming people will make new miners for as long as the economics works out, that energy has a specific average price, and that Bitcoins won't change in value, there's no real reason to think any of that is true.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:Correct that number is a lower bound which is why I said: Sorry, my bad. I was talking about de Vries's estimates for bitcoin's energy consumption, which isn't really relevant to that lower bound.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Sorry, my bad. I was talking about de Vries's estimates for bitcoin's energy consumption, which isn't really relevant to that lower bound.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yet you quoted my post talking about the lower bound, even edited out the portion not talking about the lower bound, because why? Could it be you were unaware the 2.55 number was a mathematically derived lower bound because you are reflexively denying things without investigating if they are true? Sounds about right. I've been following this de Vries guy for a while and I over-reacted since I've gotten used to him being full of it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:so wind and solar growth rates have to fall of a cliff for reasons that go unexplained. you really can't help yourself can you? its kindof fascinating how compulsive your behavior is. its not like a regular case of just generally arguing poorly, you read things people didn't say into what they did say every time. there's no variation to it, you will *always* mis-read. you can't seem to separate the words on your screen from some kind of caricature voice you've created in your head. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 01:01 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:- wind will continue its rapid growth, but that will still only move it from 2% of the total supply to like 8 StabbinHobo posted:I said wind would quadruple and solar would grow an order of magnitude, and somehow your broken stupid brain read that as "we're going to stop building them". StabbinHobo posted:Thank you, its nice to know there are still sane people reading. Go to page 32 here, and you can see that renewable electricity generation (excluding large hydro) has doubled from 6% of electricity generation in 2010 to 12% in 2017. And that, I believe, is only utility-scale, so it will undersell renewables by a small amount due to small-scale solar (i.e. a home or a business with solar panels on their roof). According to the IEA's report, renewables generate 9% of world electricity excluding all hydro power, which comes close to Bloomberg's figure. Additionally, you can look at the US, where we publish annual statistics, and solar has gone from about .04% of electricity generation in 2010 to 1.9% (including residential) in 2017, with wind going from 2% to 6% over that time period. Given the worldwide doubling of renewable's share of energy generation during the 2010 to 2017 time period, I don't think it is far fetched to think that the US numbers may closely resemble the global numbers right now of about 8% combined for electricity generated by wind & solar. In your post you say wind & solar will go from ~3% now to 12% in 2050. I think it is virtually impossible to be below 12% in 2025. And as the panels get more efficient and cheaper, solar (and solar + batteries in due time) will become cheaper than SHUTTING DOWN an existing fossil fuel plant. At that point you will have a colossal shift in a very short period of time. Open your mind a little bit to the possibilities of 2050. Arkane fucked around with this message at 01:27 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:*also* not a thing I said. Welcome to arguing with people. Sometimes people will characterize your argument in ways you wouldn't have yourself. Anyway I stand by that statement; solar and wind growth rates would really have to go off a cliff to reach the low numbers you're predicting.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Go to page 32 here, and you can see that renewable electricity generation (excluding large hydro) has doubled from 6% of electricity generation in 2010 to 12% in 2017. And that, I believe, is only utility-scale, so it will undersell renewables by a small amount due to small-scale solar (i.e. a home or a business with solar panels on their roof). yea, fair, like i said I was mired in 2011 and 2014 data digging into most of this and those 15/16/17 curves are impressive. although I disagree with the premise that global numbers are close to u.s. numbers, enough of the net-new capacity is renewable that its a decade difference not a decades difference. however, I still think we're a little missing the point. so lets try it this way: really lean into the numbers. lets say, to keep it simple that 50% of all electical generation by 2050 is wind/solar/renewables. however total electricity generated also doubled. so all we've really done by then is running to keep in place. we still net add dozens of gigatons a year alllll the way through that time frame. that means all of the current problems caused/exacerbated by climate change *keep getting much worse*. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 03:45 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:yea, fair, like i said I was mired in 2011 and 2014 data digging into most of this and those 15/16/17 curves are impressive. although I disagree with the premise that global numbers are close to u.s. numbers, enough of the net-new capacity is renewable that its a decade difference not a decades difference. No, I think you're missing the point. Climate mitigation is not a binary where we either make it or don't make it; it's a series of pathways. A world with 50% renewables in 2050 is actually tremendous progress compared to "business-as-usual" RCP 7.5 even if it merely flattens carbon emissions. See if you can spot which of these scenarios has emissions remaining mostly flat before peaking around 2050:  To me, it looks like RCP 4.5. That's going to break the carbon budget and give us more than 2C. But it's not near the worst-case scenario, it's actually on the mild side. If you don't believe me we can go through the impacts from a 2.5C compared to a 5C world that something closer to RCP8.5 would offer. You're acting like it doesn't matter how much warming we get as long as long as we've busted the carbon budget, and nothing could be further from the truth. It's the difference between making the world a bit worse, and a whole shitload worse.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
Really enjoying TL's constant insistence that 2C is fine when six people died from a tornado in the Tri-State Area this week.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
love to have "mild" climate change (mild at 2100, lets keep burning this poo poo to ashes in the future though too) must be hard to care about climate change when you're incapable of understanding that 2100 doesn't freeze the temperature in place 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 14:15 on May 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
that entire way of looking at things requires that you blind-eyed ignore all the problems today and accept that they will continue to get worse for decades and then come away thinking "ok everythings gonna be fine" its straight up psychotic RCP1 is already not ok. Get that through your head. The whole "lets give it another decade cuz i think these technology curves look promising" is like the global/generational version of some rear end in a top hat in 2007 being like "hey give it six more months this iraq war could still turn out ok". Your heart is dead and broken.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I don't believe we'll hit RCP 8.5. It's disputed that it's even possible to hit RCP 8.5. Here are a couple recent papers on that: Just curious, since these are behind paywalls; does this assume that the remaining reserves of fossil fuels necessary to resemble the RCP 8.5 pathway straight up do not exist or rather that there will eventually be a point at which they will not be economical to extract and that renewables will be unambiguously cheaper at that point? To me, the former seems pretty short-sighted (likely for coal, but I'm a little skeptical for oil and gas) but the latter may or may not pan out depending on how the political winds blow in western nations.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Really enjoying TL's constant insistence that 2C is fine when six people died from a tornado in the Tri-State Area this week. You're connecting two things that have no discernible link.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Really enjoying TL's constant insistence that 2C is fine when six people died from a tornado in the Tri-State Area this week. There is reason to believe that global warming increases hurricanes but I don't think anyone specifically links it with tornadoes. Here is a graph of "violent" (F4+) torandos and it hasn't gone up or down or anything as the world has warmed, tornados just kinda happen at a dice roll http://www.ustornadoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/violent_tornadoes_by_year.gif
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Really enjoying TL's constant insistence that 2C is fine when six people died from a tornado in the Tri-State Area this week. It's not fine. Nothing above 350ppm is fine, because that's enough to melt the Greenland Ice Sheet and we'll get (over centuries) meters of SLR. Certainly anything over 2C is going to create impacts that are beyond our capacity to adapt to. What I am trying to do is deconstruct this false dichotomy where the only ways to understand climate change are "everything is fine" and "we're all going to die". As for your tornado? It's beside the point.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Welcome to arguing with people. Sometimes people will characterize your argument in ways you wouldn't have yourself. Anyway I stand by that statement; solar and wind growth rates would really have to go off a cliff to reach the low numbers you're predicting. I read this thread a lot and read the arguments the posters make. When i debate someone, i don't hear them say things they didn't say like you do all the time. That would be an auditory hallucination and a sign of mental illness. Whats especially odd is that you somehow do it in this text based format where you can double check exactly what was said. The fact you think your style is normal arguing is telling.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:the only ways to understand climate change are "everything is fine" and "we're all going to die". says man who describes 2.5c as "mild" and accuses anyone who disagrees with him a "doomster"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
Papal Infallibility posted:Just curious, since these are behind paywalls; does this assume that the remaining reserves of fossil fuels necessary to resemble the RCP 8.5 pathway straight up do not exist or rather that there will eventually be a point at which they will not be economical to extract and that renewables will be unambiguously cheaper at that point? To me, the former seems pretty short-sighted (likely for coal, but I'm a little skeptical for oil and gas) but the latter may or may not pan out depending on how the political winds blow in western nations. The latter. RCP8.5 depends on burning a LOT of coal, and requires expanding it use well out into the second half of the 21st century. But coal's growth has been sluggish and it's quite possible it will peak soon, in the next decade, for primarily economic reasons. Without a rebound it's unlikely we'll be able to emit enough to hit RCP8.5.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:I read this thread a lot and read the arguments the posters make. When i debate someone, i don't hear them say things they didn't say like you do all the time. That would be an auditory hallucination and a sign of mental illness. Whats especially odd is that you somehow do it in this text based format where you can double check exactly what was said. The fact you think your style is normal arguing is telling. You must argue with saints then. In my experience, especially with controversial topics where there's a lot of emotion investment, people will more or less constantly accuse each other of misrepresenting/misunderstanding them, putting words in their mouths, making a strawman argument, etc. You've really never encountered this, and would think someone who did that was mentally ill? You also seem to be missing that people are putting words in my mouth, on this very page. They're claiming I said "2.5C warming is fine" when I said nothing of the sort. But I'm not going to have an aneurysm about it; I just say "No, that's not what I meant" and move on.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:54 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:What I am trying to do is deconstruct this false dichotomy where the only ways to understand climate change are "everything is fine" and "we're all going to die". you have positioned yourself as the champion and defender against a fictional thing. you are unwell. you're like the climate version of someone panicking because transwomen might molest your daughter in the girls bathroom. you have taken an absurd premise, and built an identity around overreacting to it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2018 15:53
|
|